| Today 12:32 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Are there any downsides to joining international firms compared to local big4? Say in terms of bonus or progression
|
Shorter runway to make partner in Big4.
Remuneration in international firms is usually higher from assoc to SA level, but watch out for the fake internationals that pay their assocs based on local salary scales.
|
| Today 11:57 AM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
OP here, I appreciate that you tried to help. I understand that the "tried and tested" way of going in-house is to get a few years of experience in practice and then moving in-house.
My premise is, however, different in that I think of such in-house experiences as a way to understand legal/operations from the client's perspective (where they focus on the commercial drivers and deal with stakeholders coming from different backgrounds- e.g. management, commercial teams, technicians such as engineers, etc.) which is contrasted from the regular trainee/assoc-partner relationship and dynamic.
My thinking is that gaining experience in such a setting (as well as developing a working relationship with the in-house team there which you could hopefully bring back to your firm) will stand you in good stead for private practice in which you can be distinguished from your pure pp peers who have no such experience, or alternatively give you the chance to move in-house from then on.
My questions (1) and (2), and particularly (2), therefore relate to the above premise which would be helpful to all involved.
This is especially prevalent in that future PTC trainees can now seek in-house stints as part of the PTC requirement. So, as someone interested in potentially taking up that path, I was curious if anyone has heard of how law students/trainees in particular have managed to land such roles (in contrast to young assocs who have worked with such in-house teams in their capacity as external counsel, and thereafter move to join them).
|
Get your grounding in private practice first. It is a "tried and tested" route for a reason.
Speaking as a fairly senior in-house counsel, over the years we have hired very junior counsels who have joined after just 1 to 2 years of practice.
Many of them are not up to scratch and don't last during probation. The runway is short. We need people who can hit the ground running and communicate with externals, senior management, internal business teams and stakeholders with some confidence and authority.
Things move very fast commercially and Legal has to match the pace to deliver the advice and services that the business requires.
I don't have time to teach a new team member how to speak to a committee chairman or the deputy MD or a business unit head, let alone vet his or her emails to them. I need them to be able to do that and hold their own from day one.
The law firm environment will go some way towards giving you that grounding. I would say the sweet spot for the move inhouse is 4 to 5 PQE.
|
| Today 11:51 AM |
| Unregistered |
Are there any downsides to joining international firms compared to local big4? Say in terms of bonus or progression
|
| Today 12:39 AM |
| Unregistered |
Views
Thoughts on A&G tax?
|
| Yesterday 10:32 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
OP here, I appreciate that you tried to help. I understand that the "tried and tested" way of going in-house is to get a few years of experience in practice and then moving in-house.
My premise is, however, different in that I think of such in-house experiences as a way to understand legal/operations from the client's perspective (where they focus on the commercial drivers and deal with stakeholders coming from different backgrounds- e.g. management, commercial teams, technicians such as engineers, etc.) which is contrasted from the regular trainee/assoc-partner relationship and dynamic.
My thinking is that gaining experience in such a setting (as well as developing a working relationship with the in-house team there which you could hopefully bring back to your firm) will stand you in good stead for private practice in which you can be distinguished from your pure pp peers who have no such experience, or alternatively give you the chance to move in-house from then on.
My questions (1) and (2), and particularly (2), therefore relate to the above premise which would be helpful to all involved.
This is especially prevalent in that future PTC trainees can now seek in-house stints as part of the PTC requirement. So, as someone interested in potentially taking up that path, I was curious if anyone has heard of how law students/trainees in particular have managed to land such roles (in contrast to young assocs who have worked with such in-house teams in their capacity as external counsel, and thereafter move to join them).
|
Thanks for appreciating. The work done on the in house counsel side varies quite a bit from firm to firm - most in house counsels review, but a large part of the work is liaising and passing on important contracts to the engaged law firm’s Corp commercial team, and if there are disputes, to the dispute resolution team.
So the question really is - where are you looking to go?
Nothing beats learning as a trainee - you are literally paid to learn, and then try to stay till NQ and get a PQE or two
|
| Yesterday 02:52 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
OP here, I appreciate that you tried to help. I understand that the "tried and tested" way of going in-house is to get a few years of experience in practice and then moving in-house.
My premise is, however, different in that I think of such in-house experiences as a way to understand legal/operations from the client's perspective (where they focus on the commercial drivers and deal with stakeholders coming from different backgrounds- e.g. management, commercial teams, technicians such as engineers, etc.) which is contrasted from the regular trainee/assoc-partner relationship and dynamic.
My thinking is that gaining experience in such a setting (as well as developing a working relationship with the in-house team there which you could hopefully bring back to your firm) will stand you in good stead for private practice in which you can be distinguished from your pure pp peers who have no such experience, or alternatively give you the chance to move in-house from then on.
My questions (1) and (2), and particularly (2), therefore relate to the above premise which would be helpful to all involved.
This is especially prevalent in that future PTC trainees can now seek in-house stints as part of the PTC requirement. So, as someone interested in potentially taking up that path, I was curious if anyone has heard of how law students/trainees in particular have managed to land such roles (in contrast to young assocs who have worked with such in-house teams in their capacity as external counsel, and thereafter move to join them).
|
Depends on the department / firm.
If you are in a local firm, the runway to Partner is short, and inhouse stints may result in PQE cuts. Less so for intl firms. Generally, the mindset is most law firms is still that 100% practice is the way to make partner.
However, depending on practice area, from a substantive/work pov, inhouse exp is likely to be very useful for more "operational" and/or "specialised" fields, and less useful for more "project-based" fields. For instance:
Disputes - inhouse exp is not useful at all
M&A - limited use, unless you are inhouse in a company that does M&A on a regular basis
Funds - prob quite useful, as fund structuring is all about the underlying commercial considerations
Finreg - useful, as alot of Finreg is about understanding the business and how that relates to regulations
Projects - prob quite useful to understand the underlying commercial realities
You probably also can take max 2 yrs inhouse before firms consider that you are too detached from practice
|
| Yesterday 02:07 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
OP here, I appreciate that you tried to help. I understand that the "tried and tested" way of going in-house is to get a few years of experience in practice and then moving in-house.
My premise is, however, different in that I think of such in-house experiences as a way to understand legal/operations from the client's perspective (where they focus on the commercial drivers and deal with stakeholders coming from different backgrounds- e.g. management, commercial teams, technicians such as engineers, etc.) which is contrasted from the regular trainee/assoc-partner relationship and dynamic.
My thinking is that gaining experience in such a setting (as well as developing a working relationship with the in-house team there which you could hopefully bring back to your firm) will stand you in good stead for private practice in which you can be distinguished from your pure pp peers who have no such experience, or alternatively give you the chance to move in-house from then on.
My questions (1) and (2), and particularly (2), therefore relate to the above premise which would be helpful to all involved.
This is especially prevalent in that future PTC trainees can now seek in-house stints as part of the PTC requirement. So, as someone interested in potentially taking up that path, I was curious if anyone has heard of how law students/trainees in particular have managed to land such roles (in contrast to young assocs who have worked with such in-house teams in their capacity as external counsel, and thereafter move to join them).
|
In house lawyer here.
Good mentality.
But I would still recommend going PP first because there are skills you should learn as a freshly called lawyer at a PP where you still can have the "im new" card.
I was in PP for 3 years before moving in house and the first 2-3 months of moving in house, I could already see myself displaying skills/attributes I gained over the course of 3 years in PP in my new role. Things I learnt from my mentor in PP were put to good use, even in the mundane stuff like replying emails with precision, labelling attachments etc.
Some people scoff at such comments but a good lawyer knows that we as individuals, do not sell a physical product. We advertise and offer our skillset in knowing the law, how to explain it to laymen, how to apply it in situations.
I would bet my left testicle that any corporate company would appreciate an in house who is able to reply emails with qualitative feedback over someone who did not gain all those skills under mentorship at a PP and went straight in house after being called (in fact you may not even need to be called to go in house under the new regime).
All jokes aside, I regretted the nights I slogged away at PP but I never regretted going to PP first even though I knew my end goal was always to move in house. Given the same situation, knowing that I would have learnt what I know now only at PP, I would do the same thing again.
Made my life a lot easier in house with what I learnt at PP. I hope you go through the same path and have an excellent career ahead.
|
| Yesterday 12:54 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
OP here, I appreciate that you tried to help. I understand that the "tried and tested" way of going in-house is to get a few years of experience in practice and then moving in-house.
|
I would suggest only doing so if you're going into a niche in-house role that can make you stand out when trying to pivot back to PP. If you're going gencorp in-house, PP first puts your career in better stead. Got to get your legal chops first before worrying about the client's legal/operations, but it's a great mentality to maintain even when starting out in PP.
|
| Yesterday 11:22 AM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I think you should start out at a law practice and get some PQE first
You can try out in house internships during Uni if you’d like
|
OP here, I appreciate that you tried to help. I understand that the "tried and tested" way of going in-house is to get a few years of experience in practice and then moving in-house.
My premise is, however, different in that I think of such in-house experiences as a way to understand legal/operations from the client's perspective (where they focus on the commercial drivers and deal with stakeholders coming from different backgrounds- e.g. management, commercial teams, technicians such as engineers, etc.) which is contrasted from the regular trainee/assoc-partner relationship and dynamic.
My thinking is that gaining experience in such a setting (as well as developing a working relationship with the in-house team there which you could hopefully bring back to your firm) will stand you in good stead for private practice in which you can be distinguished from your pure pp peers who have no such experience, or alternatively give you the chance to move in-house from then on.
My questions (1) and (2), and particularly (2), therefore relate to the above premise which would be helpful to all involved.
This is especially prevalent in that future PTC trainees can now seek in-house stints as part of the PTC requirement. So, as someone interested in potentially taking up that path, I was curious if anyone has heard of how law students/trainees in particular have managed to land such roles (in contrast to young assocs who have worked with such in-house teams in their capacity as external counsel, and thereafter move to join them).
|
| Yesterday 08:49 AM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Thoughts on in-house stints or internships? Particularly interested, seeing as in-house experience may now be counted towards PTCs
1. How useful would they be (to you/the law firm when you return to pp)?
2. Is it even possible to get such experiences? Through which avenues?
|
I think you should start out at a law practice and get some PQE first
You can try out in house internships during Uni if you’d like
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
